Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Its obvious she was going to have a date with Rick, the male bigfoot, and was propperly prepared by a hairdresses.

Ken, the other bigfoot lingering around was probably her former mate, awaiting to kill Rick with his paws. Cheating and passional bigfooticide are very common parts of bigfeet´s behavior. Rick´s body was then buried (remember LAL´s account of a sighting of bigfeet burying a dead bigfoot?). This coupled with PNW intense scavenging activity, lack of roads and rough terrain avoided Rick´s and other bigfeet corpses being found.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It references testimony by many in the movie industry that we have a man in a suit..


We ( well, some of us ) are well aware of how scientists can be fooled by ' magic ', while ' magicians ' have no problem spotting trickery.. I suggest this may apply very well in other arenas also.

 

[William Parcher]

Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

John Vulich puts little credence in the long-held belief among Bigfooters that makeup artists have proclaimed the Patterson Bigfoot as impossible to duplicate:

One guy wrote to me and said, "You know, Disney people looked at it and they said that it couldn't be duplicated." Well, Disney was never known for doing prosthetic effects. I'll tell you as a makeup artist looking at it, it's a guy in a suit. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a guy in a suit. They get into specifics like the way the head turns, that it turns like a gorilla. It turns that way because the suit was stiff and made from polyfoam and he couldn't probably turn his neck very well. Well if it's stiff then how could it be walking? Well, not every part of it is going to be stiff, the joints are going to be loose, etc. But I think it was a guy in a suit.

This critic screws up. The head is quite mobile. It was a helmet/mask ensemble that is not attached to the rest of the costume. When the subject turns to look at Patterson, the head swivels just like a human head. The shoulders rotate in accordance with the head turn. Then the head instantly rotates back forwards and the shoulders follow.

One of the disadvantages Heironimus had, was that the mask caused tunnel vision looking through the eyeholes. Bob probably had to pay very close attention to where he was going or he might stumble. Especially considering the wacky feet he was wearing. He might have chosen a walking path that had few or no meaningful obstacles to walk over. If he did ever stumble, Patterson could have edited that bit out of the film.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I agree with your assessment of this bit of testimony..

I find problems with both sides of this story.. However, variations from multiple witnesses is to be expected..

Some people make a big deal of the turning of the torso to look, while it is evident when he turns back, the head turns independantly..


Also the great length to explain the ' funny ' walk and the absence of ' locked ' knees; when the knees are obviously locked in several steps, while remaing slightly bent in others. Completely natural when negotiating uneven terrain. The walk doesn't look funny to me at all. ( doesn't even come close to the bowlegged , bent knee wobble of chimps, orang's etc. when they walk bipedally.. )

I understand Bob H. was/is blind in left eye.. ( there is speculation about the sun catching it in the film )


Strutting through a clearing ( taking the long way ) with no apparent purpose, while not conclusive, is uncharacteristic of this supposed shy creature..



I have seen references to the possible existance of other film and photos of the PGF suit.. It would really be great to get ahold of same..


There is reference to a documentary made by David Wolper that may show the suit.. I see in his filmography that he made a film called " Up from the Ape (1974) " also known as " The Animal Within "..



( Note: There is no doubt in my mind Patty is a man in a suit. I'm just pointing out some of the flaws (IMHO ) in the suggestion that it is anything else. )

 

[William Parcher]

I agree with your assessment of this bit of testimony..

I find problems with both sides of this story.. However, variations from multiple witnesses is to be expected..

That is to be expected and even from Bob Heironimus, the man who actually wore the suit. But variations is skeptical criticism are used by the Bigfoot subculture to show that critics don't know their butt from a hole in the ground and should be categorically dismissed.

If the skeptics don't all perfectly agree, then Bigfoot must be a real creature.

 

[Hitch]

re: the "funny walk"

There's a lot of talk about the way Patty walks. Bigfoot enthusiasts vary for saying it's obviously an unknown animal because the walk looks much more human than ape-like as one would expect from a man in a suit trying to look like an animal. To others who point out that the gait is obviously unnatural and impossible for a human to dupicate.

(Strangely, it's often described as looking like Groucho Marx, so one could conclude that it's impossible for a human to walk like Groucho Marx. But that's a matter for a different thread.)

There's some debate over whether the knees lock. To some people it looks like they do lock on some strides while others insist they never do. Then there's the matter of the elevation of the foot at the back of the stride. Patty seems to raise her feet much more than is natural for a human.

Just my own speculation here, and I offer this as nothing more than something to think about. If Patty is a man in a suit, the feet of the suit are much larger than human feet. How does a human in oversize feet walk? One example is someone trying to walk in swim fins. Basically there are two ways to do it. one is a flat-footed waddle, the other is an exagerated high step to clear the ground with the overlong toes. Now Patty's feet are not as long as floppy swim fins, but how would her stride compare to a man with oversize feet in a suit doing a less exagerated verion of the swim fin walk?

 

[LTC8K6]

Hitch, I have speculated that it could simply be to make sure the feet were on camera. Lift them up high to get a good shot of those famous big feet, as it were.

 

[LAL]

I used to really love this footage when I was a kid. Back then, it looked so authentic. However, now that I work in a related media field, I don’t know…it kinda looks like a guy in a suit. I’ve been keeping track of that other thread, as well, and Chris’ input really started convincing me.

Did you miss the part where it was shown Gorillas have such a "line" and I admitted I do too?

After doing a bit more research, here is my opinion why it is fake:

1) Bob Hieronimus, a close associate of Patterson and Gimlin, claimed to be the guy in the suit. Multiple friends and relatives not only back up his story, and claim they were aware of it in 1967, but also claim to have seen the suit in his trunk before Patterson and Gimlin reclaimed it. Add to this a confession by a known maker of gorilla suits that claimed to have sold Patterson a suit, which he was fully capable of modifying. I mean, what are the odds that the best footage we have to date was shot by a guy who was purposefully out to film Bigfoot…with a rented camera…at a time when having and renting cameras was not commonplace. Smells fishy to me.

Oh, you're up to 32 minutes now? Did you see my replies to your posts on the other thread or did I waste hours trying to respond to them all?

Heironimus has produced no evidence to support his several stories. Nor has Morris. You must have missed Green's review. Here it is again:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/reviews/long.htm

Patterson set out to make a documentary. Should he have done that without a camera?

2) Despite the claims of Footers, many independent experts have claimed that the footage seems to depict a person of human height and girth, with a human center of balance, walking with a gait (albeit forced) within human means.

Let's see the reports. How many of these "experts" gave the film more than a cursory glance?

3) The breasts, probably molded on so as to explain why this Bigfoot wasn’t 8 feet tall (being a smaller female), were covered with fur…an anomaly in the primate world. The fur also seems to be of uniform length throughout the “creature”, further indication of a costume. Add to that the immobile fur diaper, and you got...monkey suit!

There's no diaper. The compliant gait reduces gluteus wobble. Hairy breasts are not uncommon on hominids. Sometimes it's very light. A hairy female chest is to be expected in a temperate climate.

4) Failure of Patterson and crew to pursue the creature after the 60 seconds of footage, even when the creature was not moving very fast. Footage is jerky and amateurish, even to a ridiculous degree. No attempt to manually zoom into subject…film is full wide the whole time.

They did pursue it.

5) Failure of anyone, anywhere to get better footage than this in almost 40 years despite advanced equipment like trip cameras and the almost universal presence of hand held cameras tells me the creature does not exist.

There've been other films and many attempts to get more. They're elusive and largely nocturnal. This is not an easy task.

If Patterson pulled a hoax, why didn't he just dust off the suit and make another film rather than dying broke? He spent the last of the money made from the film on a trip to Tibet to check out what turned out to be a hoax.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

 

[Hitch]

If Patterson pulled a hoax, why didn't he just dust off the suit and make another film rather than dying broke?

I'm not stating this as fact, just running scenarios in my mind, because Lu doesn't seem to be willing to consider the possibility of a hoax.

35 years ago the P/G film was widely considered (outside the Bigfoot enthusiast circles) to be a hoax. If, in fact, it was, Patterson would have had a much harder time getting a second film accepted as genuine. People wanted to see a better, clearer shot of the "creature" whatever it was. If Patterson had come forward with a another film as shaky and out of focus as the first, he'd be facing even less credibility than he already had. If it was a suit, a second steadier, better focused film would have been too much a risk for exposing flaws. If it was a fake, there was almost no benefit and much risk involved in trying to fake it a second time.

If it was a real creature, there were obvious rewards, both potential money and vindication, to be had from getting a second, better film. How many more times did Patterson return to the area to try to spot Patty again? (Not a challenge -- a sincere request for information. Subsequent, failed trips don't get talked about much, it at all. I don't know if they happened. Patterson may not have been able to afford it, but given his one success, it seems Bigfoot enthusiasts should have financed further attempts.)

 

[hodgy]

There's something just so funny about the phrase bloke in a suit. You British kill me. It should be the name of a sitcom.

I remember some British guy came on these boards a while back...maybe it was you...and it the midst of all this raging debate about curling toeprints in tracks and the stride length of Patty he just posts something like:

"It always looked like a bloke in a suit when I was a kid, and now that I see it again...it looks like a bloke in a suit."

Just friggin' killed me. I'm no good for the rest of the day.

Ahhh...I wish I could find that quote. I'd stick it in my signature.

Heh heh - that was me!
But joking aside - it does look like a bloke in a suit.

 

[Dr. DRE]

This movie probably explains both the bigfoot and the Chilean gnome mysteries.

Cryptozoological evidence?

 

[RayG]

Re: re: the "funny walk"

(Strangely, it's often described as looking like Groucho Marx, so one could conclude that it's impossible for a human to walk like Groucho Marx. But that's a matter for a different thread.)

I've mentioned the Groucho aspect a few times when discussing the Patterson film. Not because Groucho's walk can't be duplicated, but because of the results I can imagine if someone duplicates the supposed stride length and manner of walking of the film subject (if we are to believe the stride measurements taken at the film site).

The subject has the sole of the foot showing to the rear, much the same as this:

and the 'typical' stride length was 81.5". Try it yourself. Can the stride length be duplicated? Sure. Can the stride length be duplicated while the sole shows to the rear (as in the above photo)? Sure, but I'm guessing it will look a shade more comical.

Then there's the matter of the elevation of the foot at the back of the stride. Patty seems to raise her feet much more than is natural for a human.

Which is where the silly walk comparison comes in.

Just my own speculation here, and I offer this as nothing more than something to think about. If Patty is a man in a suit, the feet of the suit are much larger than human feet. How does a human in oversize feet walk? One example is someone trying to walk in swim fins. Basically there are two ways to do it. one is a flat-footed waddle, the other is an exagerated high step to clear the ground with the overlong toes. Now Patty's feet are not as long as floppy swim fins, but how would her stride compare to a man with oversize feet in a suit doing a less exagerated verion of the swim fin walk?

Good point, how would the stride compare? Has anyone attempted to duplicate the stride using fake feet/flippers while ensuring the sole of the foot shows to the rear with each step?

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Good point, how would the stride compare? Has anyone attempted to duplicate the stride using fake feet/flippers while ensuring the sole of the foot shows to the rear with each step?

I don't see in the PGF where the feet look particularly oversized.. ( in proportion to the figure.. I realize the size of the figure is another matter of debate ... )


People keep talking about funny walks and clown shoes; it is as if they are talking about something other than the PGF..


There are a couple of shots of the sole of the foot, but it doesn't appear to me to be persistant throughout the film..

The analysis of this film by the non-hoax side, speaks of data mining.. They pick out a couple of anomalies that support their position, then act as if these anomalies are typical of the entire sequence..

 

[mayday]

It is a very real possibility that yeti exists. I have thought of many ways to capture this creature. It is very strong, so conventional traps will not work. Since they are apparently not only elusive but smart this trap will have to be very specially designed. The trick for me would be after I welded this thing, how would I get it in the woods and looking like an inconspicuous part of the scenery?
People say you should just be able to fix up a trap and catch one, but it is much more complicated than that.
In my area of Tennessee there have been two confirmed sightings in the same area (which happens to be the area of my other farm.)
It is a very exciting prospect that bigfoot lives in this area. One night years ago I was out in the woods doing my business about 10pm at night (at this time we had to use an outhouse and since I was opposed to using outhouses I walked out in the woods a little way to go). Anyway, I heard this very distinct knocking of wood. At first I thought it had to be a ghost, because the old white house and the surrounding area was very haunted. But I kept hearing it, and it was very strong sounding and loud, like a very strong person hitting a baseball bat against a tree. And this went on for as long as I was out there, about 10 minutes. I got a little scared at one point and when I ran back to the house I mean I really ran. I was sure it was ghosts in the woods chopping wood, as that was about the only explanation for the noise. But several years later I read that bigfoot communicates by knocking on trees! I would not doubt one bit that is what I heard in the woods that night.
So, yes, I can see why after all these years there has been no real substantial footage or captures. We are dealing with a very special creature, and it's not likely we ever will have the footage or capture.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.........
In my area of Tennessee there have been two confirmed sightings in the same area (which happens to be the area of my other farm.).........

Uhhh, confirmed by whom ? What constitutes confirmation ?



Relevance to the PGF ?

 

[bruto]

It is a very real possibility that yeti exists. I have thought of many ways to capture this creature. It is very strong, so conventional traps will not work. Since they are apparently not only elusive but smart this trap will have to be very specially designed. The trick for me would be after I welded this thing, how would I get it in the woods and looking like an inconspicuous part of the scenery?
People say you should just be able to fix up a trap and catch one, but it is much more complicated than that.
In my area of Tennessee there have been two confirmed sightings in the same area (which happens to be the area of my other farm.)
It is a very exciting prospect that bigfoot lives in this area. One night years ago I was out in the woods doing my business about 10pm at night (at this time we had to use an outhouse and since I was opposed to using outhouses I walked out in the woods a little way to go). Anyway, I heard this very distinct knocking of wood. At first I thought it had to be a ghost, because the old white house and the surrounding area was very haunted. But I kept hearing it, and it was very strong sounding and loud, like a very strong person hitting a baseball bat against a tree. And this went on for as long as I was out there, about 10 minutes. I got a little scared at one point and when I ran back to the house I mean I really ran. I was sure it was ghosts in the woods chopping wood, as that was about the only explanation for the noise. But several years later I read that bigfoot communicates by knocking on trees! I would not doubt one bit that is what I heard in the woods that night.
So, yes, I can see why after all these years there has been no real substantial footage or captures. We are dealing with a very special creature, and it's not likely we ever will have the footage or capture.

A trap is probably more than you would need. If people can get close enough for a "confirmed sighting," why can't anyone get close enough, or place hidden equipment close enough, to get a picture? Nature photographers build blinds, set remote equipment, and manage to get still and moving pictures of hyenas and lions and tigers and bears (oh my), but not one sasquatch. One good, focused, clear still photograph would be a major advance. If you really think there are bigfeet out in your woods, you really ought to investigate the options for remotely operated or motion activated cameras, and see if you can bag one.

I wonder if different bigfeet speak different dialects. In the other current bigfoot thread here, there's mention of their vocalizing, and bigfoot hunters going out with tape recordings of their howls. Now it seems they pound on trees. Is there any discernible pattern to this noise? Is there any sign of response from another place? Any sign of tree damage at the height a bigfoot might be expected to have banged on it?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Your own copy of PGF for only a mil..

http://beckjord.com/bigfoot/patfilmforsale.html

This is a physical piece of film stock, the Patterson-Gimlin Film, 16mm, 23 ft long, good condition, and we are selling it

Link to the home page for this offer ..

http://beckjord.com/bigfoot/index.html

Does the name " Beckjord " sound familiar ?

 

[Hitch]

Robert De Niro has seen this film, as has Dr Jane Goodall and Dr Dian Fossey, projected by us. It has been shown to editors at National Geographic.
None were skeptical.

Robert De Niro??? That's good enough for me!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

" None were skeptical.. "


Skeptical of what ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, which is closer to matching all of the varied reports of sasquatch behaviors and abilities?

A - an unknown large bipedal hominid/primate

B - a shapeshifting interdimensional entity

I submit that B is the closer match.